Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dutchwrangler" data-source="post: 2187796" data-attributes="member: 4650">It may appear to be fine, but again, unless one signs a written document, it is not legally binding upon non-signatories. It is claimed that the constitution derives it's power from the "consent" of the people. However, there is no likelyhood that 100% of the people consent to something they did not sign. Thus, without unanimous consent of ALL the people, it has no validity and thus can not be binding upon those who do not consent. So an essential of free government is unanimous consent by the governed. Yet those who did not sign (give their consent) are coerced to support it against their will.The only legitimate purpose of government is for it to protect the rights of the individual. Everything the central government is doing beyond protecting life, liberty and property is a usurption of power from the people (the sovereigns). When government usurps power not delegated to it by the people it is no longer a government by consent but a government of tyranny. Which is exactly what we have today. No political party supporter who believes in free government is going to advocate for the return of power to the people. They will advance the idea that government is to be used as a means of achieving their agenda and coerce those who do not consent to obey their "laws". This is not freedom but slavery. Running it like a business or not makes no difference in the fact that a portion of the people are forced and compelled to live by laws that they never agreed upon by virtue of signing the constituional document. No man is bound to a written document until he signs it. It is immoral and wrong to demand anyone not a signatory of a contract to be forced to follow that contract's directives.Freedom?... not so much.</blockquote>

Verification